Flooding
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Paterson
I went very close to my hon. Friend’s patch on Friday and saw the scheme that worked incredibly effectively in protecting Northampton town. The Nene was tamed. He rightly says that the huge wet area was saturated. I saw a permanent caravan site that had been badly flooded and a large number of people had been evacuated. I pay tribute to all the agencies in his area that I met: the Environment Agency, the police, the fire service and the local council. He is right that it is completely barmy to build on floodplains. I want to drill it in to everyone who is listening that the NPPF makes it very clear that that is a bad idea and that it should not happen.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for making that statement on such an important issue.
Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We will start with a time limit of 15 minutes on Back-Bench speeches, with the usual injury time for up to two interventions. Clearly, hon. Members do not have to take the full 15 minutes, however. There will be no penalties if they do not speak for that long. Stranger things have happened.
Ash Dieback Disease
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has not mentioned one very important point: the cost to the landowners in my constituency who have bought many thousands of saplings and who are now having to destroy them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That is not a point of order for the Chair. The Minister is responsible for his own speech. Indeed, Mr Sheerman, you have only just come into the Chamber.
Mr Heath
I am most grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, this is a very difficult situation, and I believe we have taken all appropriate steps. To repeat something I said in response to the previous urgent question, we are not going to engage in the blame game. This is not a question of attributing blame to anyone; it is a question of getting things right, by working with everybody who has a genuine interest in the future of our forests and woodlands and making sure they are mobilised in the most effective way to deal with Chalara. Those who want to peddle conspiracy theories can do so if they wish; we will get on with dealing with the disease.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. This is a time-limited debate and the winding-up speeches will start at about 6.40 pm. As a large number of Members wish to contribute, there will be a six-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions, with the usual injury time for two interventions.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who made many of the points I wished to make.
Serious and genuine questions need answering about the genesis of Chalara fraxinea in the UK. Did the Horticultural Trades Association warning in 2009 go unheeded by DEFRA officials? Were Ministers made aware of that warning? When they were informed on 3 April of the infection in Buckinghamshire, why did they not impose a movement ban? When Crowders nursery in Lincolnshire notified officials in June this year that the disease was found in 15 of its trees, did DEFRA officials really issue it with a notice to stop it taking action? Did they put trade rules above environmental health? When the disease began to take hold in Poland in 1992 and other parts of continental Europe later on, did the EU take adequate steps to regulate and control its spread?
Is it credible to claim that wind-blown spores reached the UK from across the sea, from Denmark, given that scientific advice states that wind-blown spores can spread 20 to 30 km per year and that local spread may be via wind, rain, splash or even transmission by insects, but that over longer distances the risk of disease spread is most likely to be through the movement of diseased ash plants? Given that the UK introduced national measures to prevent the entry and spread of the disease on October 29, why did it claim that it could not do so to nurseries and growers previously? Did UK nurseries that became aware of the danger of Chalara fraxinea then stop importing seedlings from suppliers in infected countries, or did they rely on Government advice, rather than their own trade association?
All those questions will no doubt eventually be answered, and no doubt not all of them without embarrassment to politicians, officials and the industry. My focus today, however, is on examining the response that the Government must make to the increasing threat that our landscape and biodiversity face from climate change and the new vectors of disease that climate change has brought with it. In its excellent report published earlier this year, the Independent Panel on Forestry specifically addressed the need
“to see our wooded landscapes, in both rural and urban settings, being better protected from, and more resilient to future risks such as climate change, pests and diseases.”
It specifically recommends that the Government
“should speed up delivery of the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Action Plan by additional investment in research on tree and woodland diseases, resilience and biosecurity controls.”
The key question arises: have they speeded up the delivery of the action plan? I remind the House that the body meant to examine this was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2010. The key diseases and pest identified at that time were sudden oak death syndrome, oak processionary moth and Phytophthora ramorum in larch. I believe that Chalara fraxinea was mentioned only as a disease predominantly in Europe that might manifest itself in the UK.
Perhaps one of the more foolish cutbacks imposed by the Government has been the freeze on public information spending. I ask the Minister how on earth the Government propose to combat infectious diseases in plant health if they constrain their own ability to communicate directly with growers and the industry, and rely on the passive mechanism of their own website. It has been estimated that the changing risks arising from climate change and the new vectors of disease will result in a decline in timber yield in England of up to 35% by 2080, according to the Forestry Commission’s report “Climate Change Risk Assessment”, published in February.
In the past 12 months, the Forestry Commission has reported increasing incidence of Phytophthora lateralis, which attacks Lawson cypress, Phytophthora ramorum, which attacks beech and rhododendron—itself a non-native invasive species, but now a part of the UK landscape—acute oak decline and Cryphonectria parasitica, which affects sweet chestnut. To these diseases, we must add pests such as the Asian longhorn beetle in broadleaf woodland, the pine tree lappet moth on native heath land, and oak processionary moth in beech and hornbeam—to name only a few of the most serious new threats.
The number of outbreaks of these pests and diseases has risen more than twelvefold over the past 40 years. It is one thing to identify these risks to our landscape, but it is quite another to develop a mitigation and adaptation plan to combat the way in which they might impact on our biodiversity and on the ecosystem services that our forests provide. Such a plan will not be cheap. Last year in the United States, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s eradication programme for the Asian longhorn beetle alone cost US$33 million.
I urge the Government to understand that it is not enough to have a plan to tackle Chalara fraxinea. They must develop a framework in which all the new vectors of risk that threaten our landscape can be tackled. That means having a clear understanding of the value of the ecosystem services that our trees and forests provide. The Government must look to the national biodiversity action plan and the national ecosystem assessment for a blueprint for a comprehensive response. The key message of the UK national ecosystem assessment begins:
“The natural world, its biodiversity and its constituent ecosystems are critically important to our well-being and economic prosperity, but are consistently undervalued in conventional economic analyses and decision making.”
Natural capital has not been properly accounted for, and the services that our forests provide through provisioning, habitat for pollinators, watershed protection and soil stabilisation are considered—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. As long as Members do not exceed four minutes, all who want to speak can participate in the debate.
Mrs Spelman
I am not going to give way again. Moreover, one might have expected the trade press to have expressed its concern on the front pages of its publications.
We all need to share some responsibility and to redouble our efforts to spot the disease. I applaud the volunteers who have helped with the unprecedented survey of our woods and trees. As my action plan stated, collaborative working—of landowners, industry, academia, civil society and Government—is required better to protect the health of our nation’s trees. We need to pull together, not against each other, in the fight for tree health.
Mr Deputy Speaker
There are 10 minutes left. Perhaps three and a bit minutes each, and then everybody will get in.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is very sad that the House of Commons cannot come together today to tackle this disease. The Opposition’s attempt to land a blow on the Government in this regard is absolute nonsense. There is no doubt that, as the relevant map shows, a lot of the disease comes across from the continent. No Government, irrespective of their political persuasion, can stop what blows on the wind. Therefore, we must concentrate on how we are going to deal with this disease. We must look for ash trees that will be immune in future, so that we can take the seeds from them and grow them. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) said, we do not want to see the decimation that we experienced with Dutch elm disease. Indeed, I saw that on my own farm: the decimation of massive trees that were hundreds of years old. We have never really recovered from that: every time a tree grows, it catches the disease again perhaps 10 or 15 years later. We want to ensure that the ash tree is there for the future.
We must also be certain that the single market, the great wonder of the European Union, is not abused. The trouble is that no Government can stop the import of ash trees until they have proved that they have the disease, and by that time it is too late. That really has to be put right. We are surrounded by water—let us hope that not every disease can be blown across the channel—and Britain could develop the same methods that Australia and New Zealand have developed in trying to keep disease out of the country. We must ensure that we breed ash trees in this country—that we do not export the seed to Holland, where the trees are then grown, and then import the trees back again. The industry itself must take some responsibility here. When the disease is on the continent, it is absolute nonsense to keep this trade going backwards and forwards. Given the existence of the single market, it is very difficult to stop it, but we need to change things.
I want Britain to have beautiful trees into the future. As Members have pointed out, there are many diseases out there that we need to tackle, so let us adopt a positive approach. I praise what Ministers and the Secretary of State are doing to analyse where all the diseased trees are located, so that we can act quickly. We cannot simply stop the disease by chopping down all the ash trees that have it—the saplings, yes; but the mature trees, we cannot. Let us hope that some of those trees survive and that from those, we can grow the great ash trees that we want to see.
The lesson in all this is that we cannot keep exporting and importing trees, bringing disease with them. I look forward to a positive message from Ministers on research and maintaining “fortress Britain” so far as growing trees and keeping out disease is concerned, and then perhaps repopulating trees across Europe. I repeat my first point: I am very sad that the Opposition have made such a thing of this. I respect what the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) did while he was Secretary of State; he has taken a much more responsible attitude.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To resume his seat no later than 6.40, Dr Julian Lewis.
Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). As a former fireman, he demonstrates his passion for and knowledge of that subject. The last two contributions have shown how wide-ranging this debate can be—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I have been thanked for my indulgence, but let us just say that a conversation went on about how relevant some of the contributions were. Please do not test my patience too much.
Andrew George
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was in no way implying any criticism of your great office, or of the way in which you apply the rules to our debates. I have carefully cut out of my speech all the parts referring to swimming and surfing in the waters of the south-west, and any other matters that you might consider a further indulgence.
As a Member of Parliament from the south-west, it is my primary objective to address the two issues that represent the primary purpose of this three-clause Bill before us today. Having said that, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse spoke about the associated issue of fire sprinklers, which I hope will be dealt with elsewhere. Similarly, I know that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) never misses the opportunity to address the important matter of flood defences in her constituency.
I come to this debate to congratulate the Government warmly on what they are achieving through this measure, particularly by the clause that is intended, although not by name, to benefit or at least address an unfairness to the water bill payers of South West Water that has gone on for 22 years. The unfairness has been identified across all parties and by the Anna Walker review, which was commissioned by the previous Government in August 2008 and concluded in December 2009—just before the last general election. It highlighted the need to address this significant and long-standing unfairness.
I welcomed the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). She clearly enters into debates in a full-blooded manner in a debating Chamber that often becomes extremely tribal. At certain points in the debate, I was not sure whether Labour Members were going to be encouraged to vote against the Bill. Following my intervention on the hon. Lady, however, she made it clear that she and her hon. Friends would support the Bill. That will resonate through the House, following what is, after all, a cross-party consensus on this issue. She raised legitimate questions about problems of affordability—across the country generally, but particularly for the customers of South West Water—that need to be looked at further. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with some of those issues in his response. I hope, too, that legislation will be forthcoming soon after the next Queen’s Speech so that we can further meet concerns about affordability issues.
Speaking about how South West Water operates itself, I have in the past called it an ethics-free and risk-free money extortion system. I know that is rather strong language; it goes back primarily to the days when Bill Fraser was the chief executive of South West Water. His management of the business in a rather belligerent and Thatcherite style has largely been remedied by both his successors, Bob Baty and Chris Loughlin. With Chris Loughlin and his board of directors addressing the legacy, it might no longer be appropriate to describe the company as ethics-free. Chris Loughlin has managed the company well and genuinely wants to address the concerns about water affordability. I take my hat off to him and his board members for their efforts.
That said, one thing we cannot escape from is the fact that all water companies—certainly including South West Water—have a monopoly within their areas. There is effectively no competition at all. Significant questions have been raised about the effectiveness of Ofwat as a regulator. It is supposed to establish the “K” factor every few years to restrain the levering up of water bills, but water companies are still able almost to predict the end-of-year dividends at the beginning of each financial year.
Rio+20 Summit
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Please resume your seats. Ten Members want to speak. If everybody takes 10 minutes, plus the usual injury time for interventions, everybody will get in. We may have to tweak that a bit later in the debate.
Food Prices and Food Poverty
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I shall try my level best to allow everyone to speak. The wind-up speeches begin at 6.40 pm, so there is a six-minute limit on speeches.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate, and I apologise for not being here at the start—I was serving on a Statutory Instrument Committee.
I am afraid that the Government are yet again out of touch, in this case with families feeling the squeeze of higher food prices. At 4%, food inflation in the UK outstrips that of all other EU countries. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), because of his interest in Europe, and to be able to give that context.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) powerfully and graphically spelt out, food poverty is a growing concern. The cost of living crisis is affecting households across the country and more families are relying on food banks. I pay tribute to the food bank in my constituency, organised by Scunthorpe Baptist Church, which does a fantastic job in helping people to meet their crisis needs, particularly when there is a dislocation in their benefit payments. As has been said throughout the debate, although we recognise the great benefits that food banks bring to society, it is a great shame and a great condemnation of where we are that people in such a rich country have to rely on them.
I am afraid that the Government are making it harder for families to make ends meet and overseeing a massive growth in handouts from food banks as families struggle with rising costs, higher bills and job insecurity. Rising food poverty is a national scandal. Last year 60,000 people relied on food handouts, including 20,000 children, and one new food bank opened every week. A family with two small children now has to pay over £233 a year more for food due to rising prices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) drew attention to the health risks of families eating less fresh fruit and vegetables, and I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) speak about the contribution that people growing their own food on allotments can make. I am pleased that in my constituency there are initiatives across many primary schools whereby fruit and vegetables are grown to make children and families aware of the benefit of eating them. Indeed, Leys Farm junior school not only has such an initiative, but the produce is served in the school kitchen. There is much good practice out there that we need to build on.
Consumers want transparent food pricing by major retailers so that it is easy to compare goods and to make informed choices, and that is why unit pricing is so important. I am concerned, however, about the need to crack on with introducing the grocery code adjudicator; there is a strong cross-party consensus for putting that role in place.
I have asked several written questions on the matter and, in particular, on the issue of confidentiality in order to protect people who make complaints to the adjudicator, and the responses that I have received have all been in a similar vein: “Protecting the confidentiality of suppliers who raise complaints will be both a power and a duty of the adjudicator.” But the question is how that is done, and the key issue is how it is managed.
The security surrounding confidentiality is important. I had a meeting today with representatives of a packaging federation, and they made it clear that their members would be concerned about making individual complaints to the adjudicator, and that third-party complaints would need to be part of the structure. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said that people in the supply chain often operate in a climate of fear, so it is important that the decisions of this House, in pushing forward the role of the grocery adjudicator, ensure that that climate no longer exists and is properly addressed.
The National Farmers Union in my constituency and throughout the country is very much concerned to ensure that there is a third-party complaints process. Alex Godfrey, who represents the NFU in Scunthorpe, has made that very clear to me, echoing the evidence that was given to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
I hope that this debate helps to hasten putting in place the grocery code adjudicator in a way that gains the confidence of not only the people in this Chamber, but the people out there and, most importantly, the people who might want to use the adjudicator to ensure fair play in the world.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am grateful to the previous two speakers, Nic Dakin and David Nuttall, for not using their full allocation of time, as it allows at least two more speakers to get in.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate, as there is no doubt about the conclusion that we should make—that there is a link between food prices and food poverty. It is apparent that the poorest in society will find high prices difficult, and we only have to look throughout the world to find that. As the population of the world reaches 7 billion, and moves towards 8 billion by 2030, we have a greater need to produce more food, and that is where I charge the previous Government, because for much of their final period in office they did not encourage food production. In fact they said, “We can import as much food as we like”; our home production did not matter.
We therefore need greatly to increase our food production in this country, and as other Members have said, we need to use biotechnology in order to do so and to reduce our use of fertilisers and pesticides. A blight-resistant potato is coming, and it could increase food production while dramatically reducing the environmental consequences of spraying potatoes, so there is much we can do, but we have to go forward and do it.
On the grocery code adjudicator, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is no longer in his place, missed the point. If these wonderful supermarkets are not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to fear from the adjudicator. The point of setting up the post of adjudicator is to put him or her in place so that, if there is abuse, it can be looked at. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants the role of the adjudicator introduced quickly, so we need to give the legislation parliamentary time. Farmers, growers and many other people in the food chain are often squeezed not only by the big supermarkets but by the big buyers in the chains, and that is why the adjudicator is so necessary.
I therefore very much welcome the debate and what the Government are doing to increase food production and ensure that common agricultural policy reform does not set aside more land and stop food production. There is a moral obligation to produce food not only for this country, but for the rest of the world.
Wild Animals (Circuses)
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have to announce that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Are we actually going to get on to the substance of the debate at any point, rather than discussing my hon. Friend’s—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I know that Mr Pritchard is now going to move on to the substance of the motion before the House.
Mr MacShane
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is there anything more important than a Member of this House being allowed to speak as he wishes and not being threatened and intimidated? This goes to the heart of what we should be debating.
Mr Deputy Speaker
We are here today to debate the motion before the House and that is exactly what we are now going to do.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. There is a six-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. As is apparent from the number of Members rising to be called to speak, this is a very popular debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Mr Rosindell is not giving way, so persistent requests are not helping the situation. I am sure he will let the House know when he is ready to take an intervention.
Andrew Rosindell
I should like to take interventions, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am being shouted down, which is not very fair, especially from a Green MP—I should have thought that she would want to hear the other point of view.
I am a champion for animal welfare, but I shall not just follow the crowd. I shall look at the facts. What is being proposed is worse than those poor animals are used to; their entire life has been in the environment they were brought up in. Wrenching them away from the people who have looked after them, loved them and cared for them would obliterate their rhythm of life and would be crueller than allowing it to continue. I shall now give way.
Andrew Rosindell
I am afraid to say that I am sorry that the debate is being dragged to such a level. Instead of dealing with the facts, you are ultimately saying that animals—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Once again, I can see that emotions are running high, but I remind the House that when you say, “you”, you mean me.
Andrew Rosindell
I knew that my views would be unpopular, but I ask hon. Members perhaps to take something away from what I am saying, because I believe passionately in animal welfare. I looked at this for three years. I visited circuses. I spoke to people who deal with training the animals, and I know that they are loved and cared for. This is like a pack hunting a tiny bit of tradition that still exists in this country, where animal welfare standards are greatly considered and animals are loved and cared for. I am afraid to say that, if we rush to make a decision based on pure emotion and opinion polls, I really think that it will be an irresponsible decision. We should look at the facts. We should understand the long-term interests of animal welfare and use existing legislation to deal with this issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. So that more Back Benchers will have an opportunity to speak, I am reducing the time limit to five minutes.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. As the House can see, several Members are still trying to speak. The wind-ups will start at half-past 5, so if Members can show restraint and reduce their five minutes themselves—perhaps to three and a half minutes—everybody might get in.
Fisheries
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The wind-ups are going to start at half-past 5. Seven people wish to catch my eye, so if they speak for a shade under six minutes, that means that everybody will get in. I will rely on your generosity for that. I call Eric Ollerenshaw.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The hon. Gentleman will have to finish his speech at half-past 5.
Zac Goldsmith
I start by again thanking the Backbench Business Committee for making this debate possible. We have heard some superb contributions from Members across the House, and every speech added something unique, which was very important. I also want to thank the shadow Minister and the Minister for their supportive comments and for staying throughout the entire debate, taking notes furiously and responding to the various points that were made. That is not always the case in such debates, so I appreciate it.
I wish to offer particular thanks to the Fish Fight campaign, which was mentioned again and again throughout the debate. There is a direct link between its campaign outside Parliament and this motion in Parliament. It is a perfect example of hundreds of thousands of people mobilising their representatives in Parliament and moving an issue that not many people find interesting to the top of the political agenda, for now at least. I pay tribute to those campaigners, who have done a superb job. The debate probably would not be happening, and certainly not with such a motion, without their involvement.
The motion is ambitious. I will not repeat all the arguments used at the beginning of the debate because I will run out of time, and kill the motion myself in doing so. If it is passed with the support of the House, which I think it will be, we will see an absolute commitment to ending discards and a new regulatory regime that recognises the difference between small, traditional fishermen and their industrial competitors. Crucially, we will see the beginning of a process in which we will regain control over those crucial 12 sovereign miles. In my view, nothing is possible without that. It is a central part of the motion. I once again thank the House and the Backbench Business Committee.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Does the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) wish to move her amendments? No? We shall therefore decide on the motion before the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Fish Fight campaign; and calls on the Government to vote against proposed reforms of the EU Common Fisheries Policy unless they implement an ecosystems-based approach to fisheries management, end discards in relation to all fish and shellfish with derogation only for species proven to have a high survival rate on discarding, require that all fish and shellfish are harvested at sustainable levels by 2015, ensure the involvement of fishers and other stakeholders in decision-making processes and enable the UK to introduce higher standards of management and conservation in respect of all vessels fishing within its territorial waters, taking into particular account vessel size and environmental impact.
Sustainable Livestock Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Most hon. Members will not have had a chance to see the written statement that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) slipped out this lunch time. I understand that he found the time to be in the Chamber earlier. The written statement says that the Government have abandoned their plans to introduce defence anonymity in rape cases. Can you clarify whether the Under-Secretary sought an opportunity this morning to make an oral statement so that hon. Members could have a chance to question him? If not, what are my options as a new Member, if I want the Minister to come to the House next week and give hon. Members a proper chance to scrutinise the announcement?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you for that point of order. No Minister has approached the Speaker to ask to make a statement today. However, as the hon. Member knows, it is for the Government to decide how they wish to make the announcement, whether through an oral or a written statement. Clearly, in this case, they have decided to make a written statement. Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Member’s remarks and I am sure that, if the Under-Secretary wants to make an oral statement next week, the hon. Member will see on the Annunciator screens that that is what the Government wish to do.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Surely the issue does not rest entirely with the Ministry of Justice. The Home Office has also been heavily engaged in the dispute, which has been running for a long time. At one point, the Government announced that the idea would be dropped, but then they reinstituted it. Given the amount of genuine fear and concern that has been expressed to me in my constituency—I know that I am not alone in that experience—surely the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Justice should make a statement, and then hon. Members can justifiably put questions to them.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I do not have much to add to my response to Thomas Docherty. As the hon. Lady knows, there are other avenues whereby she can raise the issue—in Adjournment debates, Westminster Hall and in questions to the Department, when they arise.
Debate resumed.
Mr Chope
Clause 1(3) has the requirement that
“The Secretary of State must ensure that policies in relation to negotiations and other activities at international level, including at the European Union, are consistent with sections 1(1) and 1(2).”
As the Minister said, he would not be in a position to ensure that. I submit that it is not open to anybody in the Government or the House to ensure that various policies are consistent with what is going on in the European Union on matters about which we do not have the final say and are subject to qualified majority voting. As I understand it, there is a discussion at this very time on whether the EU budget should increase by 2.9% or more next year, but the House has no final control of that. Clause 1(3) is rather like saying, “The Prime Minister shall ensure that the UK contribution to the EU budget does not increase.” We do not have the power to do that, just as my hon. Friend the Minister has no power to ensure that EU agriculture policy is as we would wish it to be.
It is relevant in that context to mention a very helpful report by Friends of the Earth that shows how EU subsidies currently encourage unsustainable practices, which is obviously at odds with the Bill. Friends of the Earth has calculated that some £700 million of English taxpayers’ money was spent on propping up factory farming through the common agricultural policy in 2008. Its report states:
“Small farms are losing out to factory farms—the most damaging link in a chain that connects the food on our plates to forest destruction…UK factory farms also contribute significantly to the UK greenhouse gas emissions and undermine rural livelihoods.”
The Friends of the Earth figure of £700 million is
“based on the best available information and calculated on the basis of subsidies”—
British taxpayers’ money that goes to the EU and is then recycled for the purpose of subsidising parts of agriculture—
“for cereal production…Export subsidies which largely go to companies and processing industries…Untargeted direct payments which are increasing money being received by the intensive pig and poultry sectors…Historical payments that award the biggest payments to the farms that produced intensively in the past…Dairy payments that are based on historical production quotas”
and
“Lowland grazing livestock untargeted subsidies that do not support extensive models adequately and therefore continue to support the increasing tendency to intensify or exit the farming sector”.
The CAP was last reformed in 2003. We hope that a more substantial reform is about to take place, but I will believe it when I see it. The reform is the one we were promised when Mr Blair gave away a large part of our rebate on the basis that the CAP would be reformed. The next few months will be decisive in determining whether we will get anything significant in return for giving up that rebate, but the early suggestions are that we will not get anything like what we are looking for in that revision of the CAP.
I predict that because the word “sustainable” is rather trendy at the moment, there will be a lot of guff about sustainable this and sustainable that in the CAP reforms, but economic sustainability, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North and others mentioned, will probably be omitted. A proper recognition of, and reference to, economic sustainability has been missing in this debate. I take the view that the CAP is not only environmentally unsustainable—indeed, it undermines environmental sustainability—but economically unsustainable. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will make those points in his typically tough and uncompromising fashion when he goes to negotiate CAP reform. I am sure he will tell the French that although we agree on certain aspects of defence, we need to go a lot further before we agree on support for the agricultural sector.
Interestingly, the Bill contains quite a lot of material that is relevant, or could be relevant, to the second Bill on the Order Paper—the Public Bodies (Sustainable Food) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who has a long-standing interest in improving the quality of food available in this country. Last night she introduced me to somebody from “The Food Programme,” and we were talking about that Bill. I am sure that if the hon. Lady were to seek to participate in this debate, there would be sufficient scope for her to make some of the points relevant to her Bill under the umbrella of—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Mr Chope, could you restrict your comments to the Bill that we are discussing now? Let us not move on to the second Bill. Clearly, if you are keen for the hon. Lady to speak to her Bill, you would resume your seat and we could move on.
Mr Chope
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not sure whether I am in a position to be able to say that the hon. Lady can introduce her Bill. All I am saying is that there is quite a lot of common ground between what is in her Bill and what is in the Bill before us, and that because she has not participated in this debate so far—
Mr Deputy Speaker
It is up to the hon. Lady whether she wishes to participate in the debate on this Bill or not. Please will you now confine your remarks to the Bill before us?
Mr Chope
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have made the offer—made the point—and as you rightly say, it is a matter for the hon. Lady whether she wishes to take up the suggestion.
On the issue of the further duties being placed on the Secretary of State to ensure that there is no increase in the proportion of meat consumed in the United Kingdom that is imported, as my hon. Friend the Minister said that is prima facie contrary to World Trade Organisation rules, and it is probably against EU rules as well, and yet somehow it has found its way into the Bill.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Evans. I have come here today to support the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and to introduce the Second Reading of my Public Bodies (Sustainable Food) Bill, on behalf of many thousands of people in the UK who care about food, who do not want poetry recited in the House of Commons and who, in the run-up to the 800th anniversary celebrations of the Magna Carta, want this place to be dealing with real issues about sustainable food. Is it not time that the business leaders of the House of Commons, with Mr Speaker and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, find a way to deal with Bills such as mine, which are not mischievous, which deserve to go into Committee to be properly discussed, in the interest of public health, and which are supported by organisations such as Sustain? People expect the House of Commons to give a proper hearing to the real debate, so what can be done?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will bring the hon. Lady’s comments to the attention of Mr Speaker on Monday morning. I know how frustrating a private Members’ day can be when you have the second, third or fourth Bill to be presented; I am a veteran of Friday mornings and I have been fortunate enough to have had several private Members’ Bills, one of which had fair wind from the Government and sailed through. The others did not, so I know how frustrated she might be. The procedures we are following are set down in Standing Orders and, as I say, I will bring her comments to the attention of Mr Speaker on Monday morning. Before Mr Rees-Mogg resumes his speech, may I say that I hope he will confine his comments to the Bill and there will be no further repetitions of the poetry, as interesting as it was?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would not, of course, wish to repeat the poem, but I think it reminds us of the importance of supporting farmers. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who made a quite brilliant speech, our countryside was made by God and the farmer; it was not made by bureaucrats in Westminster or in Whitehall. It would be sad to see in this Bill the final triumph of bureaucracy—of the view that the man in Whitehall really knows best—with a range of things covering farming and agriculture to be decided by one person in Whitehall, rather than by the multifarious decisions of farmers across the world and, in particular, in our own country.
Let us examine every detail, clause and part of this Bill to see what it really means. When we do that, we find that it divides neatly into two parts; there are two clear options for us to examine. The Bill could be re-titled “Sustainable Livestock (Motherhood and Apple Pie) Bill”, a Bill that everybody agrees with and thinks is wonderful. However, that raises a question of parliamentary procedure. Is it right for us to pass laws that do not actually do anything specific, but just talk vaguely about how nice the world could and should be, if only we all clubbed together, rallied round and jollied along?
I have great doubts about the seriousness of the Bill as a proposition. We could go back to motherhood and apple pie: I imagine that apple pie would be the responsibility of DEFRA, because it is food, and that motherhood would be covered by the Secretary of State with responsibility for welfare, but this is not how laws ought to be made. They should deal with specifics and detail and should have causes and consequences; otherwise we get the vagueness, vagary and randomness of our laws being decided in the courts. If the Bill is merely aspirational, we should not be debating it at all and the issue should come before the House not in this format but in a general debate.
Of course, I want the rainforests to flourish, of course I want farming to be sustainable and of course I want people to eat British meat. If they have any sense they will buy their meat from Somerset, which is well-known for providing the best and most glorious cuts of meat in the world. Some people like Kobe beef, but I think it rather fatty and that one can get better beef from Somerset. That is the answer to most of our food problems. I want my eggs from Somerset too. There is an egg factory, or poultry plant, near Keynsham in Burnett—a wonderful place that I have visited. It is a small family operation that is committed to the highest standards of food production, but does that mean there should be a law that my friend from Ulster, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), should eat only Somerset eggs? He might think that a great imposition on him and his fellow Ulstermen, and we know what Ulster says when it does not want to do something—usually, no.
We do not want this kind of legislation. We are talking about public procurement of livestock produce. Is that just an aspiration? If so, it is probably one that the Government have anyway. If clause 1(2)(a) is aspirational, it is pointless because that is already the Government’s hope and aim. Clause 1(2) would place a duty on the Secretary of State in relation to sustainable livestock and
“providing appropriate public information and food labelling”.
I do not see a connection between the sustainability of livestock and the suitability of labelling, as they are different things. We are all in favour of honest labelling. We have heard terrible scare stories about chickens being injected with water and salt, which sounds a pretty ghastly combination. I can tell hon. Members that that does not happen to Somerset chickens. Of course, such food should be labelled as chicken, salt and water rather than just as chicken, but that is a matter for the Government to deal with through other means and regulations, not through a vague responsibility for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Clause 1(2) also addresses “sustainable livestock practices” research, but where will the money come from? We have sat in the House and listened to erudite speeches on both sides about how we should cut expenditure and raise taxes and how to afford the enormous Budget deficit that we have been left by our socialist friends. The deficit will not be magicked away, abracadabra-style, by passing more costs on to Secretaries of State. We must be responsible about what we wish for, how we go about getting it and the costs we wish to impose.
Food waste has been addressed in a wonderful discussion about pigs and what they might decide to eat. I had hoped that someone might mention the Empress of Blandings, the only pig in history to win the silver medal at the Shropshire show for three successive years. It ate a vast quantity of potatoes every day and was more than happy to eat waste food. If we are not careful, however, we will risk reintroducing problems such as foot and mouth disease, which cost the country, the taxpayer and Her Majesty’s Government billions of pounds to put right. There has to be a sensible balance when it comes to dealing with food waste.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Sustainable methods of dealing with food waste conjures up all sorts of nasty thoughts. In the 19th century, there were people who went round collecting what was politely described as night soil. It was then taken to farms and used as a fertiliser. Night soil was replaced by guano, which is the same thing, really, but from seagulls. It made a great deal of money for one particular family, who live in North Somerset, rather than North East Somerset. My hon. Friend is right to conjure up thoughts and horrors about what might be done in the recycling of food. We do not want to go back to the days of people collecting night soil. Mr Bazalgette and the sewage system that was installed in the 19th century are more capable of dealing with some waste products than the means perhaps suggested in the Bill are.
As for
“changing the subsidies available to and support for farmers”,
I come back to my question: is the Bill a sort of parliamentary wallpaper—a wish-list of what we want—or serious business? I doubt that there is an hon. Member, an hon. Friend, a right hon. Member, a right hon. Friend or an hon. and gallant Member who does not want some reform of the common agricultural policy and a change to the subsidy system that seems to make it cheap for the French to produce food but comes down on our farmers like a ton of bricks. There is a uniform view that that should happen, but there is one grand obstacle. There is entente cordiale, as long as it is not about agriculture. As soon as it is about agriculture, we are back to Agincourt and Crécy. I will not go on about Agincourt and Crécy because, although I know that those two battles are particular favourites of yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel that they are not immediately pertinent to the Bill, but the behaviour of the French in matters of agriculture is. If we think of the French, we need only think of the riots that we had the other day; French students do that day in, day out.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. We are now going very wide of the Bill. Would the hon. Gentleman bring his comments back to the contents of the Bill?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I was talking about subsidies and how we cannot do what the Bill says because the French will not let us. They will take to the streets if we try to attack subsidies across the European spectrum. People in this country—Ministers and even Prime Ministers, with all the authority that Prime Ministers have—have not been able to wean the French off their subsidies. We may share a Navy with them, but we find it difficult to share subsidies so easily.
The Minister will also have a duty to look at
“the effectiveness of existing programmes”.
If he is not already looking at their effectiveness, he is an idler and should not be in his job. I know that the Minister is far from being an idler; he is well known for being one of the most assiduous Ministers in Her Majesty’s Government, and he is the friend of the farmers. He will, therefore, be doing that already, so we are back to a grand and jolly wish-list of nice-to-do things.
Let us review subsections (1) and (2) of clause 1, headed “Duties of the Secretary of State”, as if they were not a wish list, because that is the frightening alternative. If we are talking about measures that are grand and good and fine and dandy, this should not be a Bill, but if it is real and costed and expensive and a burden on farmers, we should oppose it as a Bill, because it would be ruinous for our agriculture.
Our farmers have had a terribly difficult time in recent years. The subsidy system has changed, and they have been hit by various disasters—none of them the fault of Governments, particularly, but disasters none the less. Tuberculosis in cattle has devastated dairy farming in North East Somerset. Where there used to be field after field of cattle, they have gone. The farmers have gone out of business. Where there were 10 dairy farmers, there is now one, or, if we are lucky, two. That is partly TB, partly foot and mouth, partly milk quotas and partly regulation.
Are we now to say to the few farmers who have continued—who have striven and worked hard—that all their effort is in vain because though they were scourged with whips before, now they will be scourged with scorpions? Perhaps the Bill should be renamed the Scorpions Bill for that purpose. If it is serious in its purpose and purport, it would be very bad for our farmers. It would place extra rules on them, and would make their practices subject to a higher standard of rules than applies to others.
I have already mentioned the chicken farmer in North East Somerset, in Burnett, and that fine family who attend to their chickens there. They are out-competed, day in, day out, by Thai production. Hon. Members may think that Thai eggs are not really what they want. They may feel that Thai chicken is not their cup of tea. It is not mine, certainly; it tends to be a bit spicy. We do not want to place further regulations on farmers in North East Somerset, Ulster, Scotland, Wales or the whole of the rest of England, or even Gloucestershire. We do not want to attach regulations to our farmers that will put them out of business. That would do nothing but help foreign farmers, particularly our European friends and sometimes allies.